I. Flood Risk Mapping Need - Montana...

I. Flood Risk Mapping Need

Flooding in the State of Montana

Montana is one of few geographic areas in the world whose rivers form parts of three major watersheds. Its rivers feed the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and Hudson Bay, and the watershed areas are di-vided atop Triple Divide Peak in Glacier National Park. With 77 named mountain ranges, it is estimated Montana has over 200,000 miles of streams and rivers, thus it is referred to as a headwaters state. The Yellowstone River is the longest undammed, free-flowing river in the contiguous United States. In addition to its rivers, the state is home to Flathead Lake, the largest natural fresh-water lake in the western United States.

With mountain snow packs, spring thaws, plus precipitation, the State experiences continuous flooding treats and frequent flooding events. In addition to riverine flooding, Montana also experiences ice jam flooding, due to freezing winter temperatures and holds the record for the largest number of recorded ice jam floods in the lower 48 states. Montana experiences many types of flooding, and while flooding risk can be mapped, only 10,000 miles of Montana’s rivers and streams have flood plain maps to date.

Last year, 2011, was a particularly bad flood year in Montana, with 51 out of 56 counties and 7 tribes de-claring flood damages and a Presidential Declaration. There were in excess of 3,400 requests for individ-ual assistance and public infrastructure damage estimates exceed 55 million dollars. Federal, state and local assistance due to flood losses in Montana from 1995 to 2006 totaled over 35 million dollars.

Townsend Ice Jam Flood Broadwater County 2012 Photo Credit: Steve Story MTDNRC

2

Losses due to flood damage are likely to continue, and even increase, as Montana’s beautiful streams and rivers attract people who want to live near the water. While Montana has floodplain standards in place to protect public health, safety and welfare and while some local governments have regulations prohibiting building in the 100-year floodplain, most of Montana’s homes and structures continue to be built in flood prone areas. (http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Interim-Newsletter/2005-Interim-newsletter/interim_06oct.pdf)

Currently only 1% of Montana’s rivers and streams have established Base Flood Elevations (BFE), a necessary tool for defining at what elevation it is safe to develop, near a river or a stream. If BFEs were available on all streams and rivers, then homes, for example, could be required to be built at least two feet above the base flood elevation, as required by Montana annotated code. This would serve to re-duce flood risk for unsuspecting property owners as well s giving local government officials the informa-tion they need to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Photo Credit: Kestrel Aerial Services, INC

House on Big Hole River, twice destroyed. Once by ice jam flood, rebuilt in unregulated unmapped flood plain

3

An analysis by the Montana Legislative Service Division of property in 17 counties found that from 1990 to 2005, more than 400 homes were built in the 100 year floodplain, adding the existing inventory of about 3,800 homes within 100-year floodplains. (http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Interim-Newsletter/2005-Interim-newsletter/interim_06oct.pdf) Development pressure in floodplains near streams and rivers will continue to grow as Montana’s population grows. Preventing flood loss is most effective when floodplain mapping occurs prior to development in the floodplain.

II. Federal Flood Risk Mapping Program

With floods being the nation’s most common and costly natural disaster, there is a long history of mitiga-tion attempts. Up until the 1960s, floods were dealt with in this Country primarily through structural means, including dams, levees, seawalls, etc. In the 1960s, Congress recognized that structural meas-ures alone were not working, were becoming very costly and were not serving the environment well. A major change in how we deal with floods occurred with passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which emphasized a nonstructural regulatory approach. Congress then passed the Flood Disaster Protection Act in 1973, which required that the Federal Government identify every flood-prone community in the Country. This required issuance of a map to some 22,000 communities in the period of less than two years. This was accomplished through publication of Flood Hazard Boundary Maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

These maps were placeholders that were later superseded by preparation of detailed Flood Insurance Studies in the late 1970s to mid-1980s. After this, FEMA went into a Map Maintenance mode, and all costs of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) were borne by NFIP ratepayers, leaving a lesser amount of funding to do the detailed mapping.

In FY 2003, Congress provided the first funding since 1986 that was outside of funds derived from rate-payers, to implement the Flood Map Modernization Plan that was geared to updating and revising maps that had become outdated through the years.

Then, in the summer of 2003, FEMA requested states develop state map modernization plans. This is the 2012 RiskMap Flood Plain Mapping Plan for the State of Montana. Montana has a chronology of business plans and grant applications dating back to 2004, which document the accomplishments of the State’s flood risk mapping program. As the program accomplishments, together with a detailed history of all RiskMap program activity, have been documented and submitted to FEMA in the form of grant applica-tions on an annual basis, for brevity of this year’s plan, we chose not repeat that information but rather to reference the plans of the prior years, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

III. Montana Flood Risk Mapping Program

The State of Montana RiskMap Business Plan for 2012 was prepared to assist in the development of a comprehensive state strategy for modernizing FEMA’s inventory of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). It identifies mapping priorities for the State of Montana and outlines an approach for addressing these mapping needs. In accordance with FEMA guidelines and Department of Homeland Security objectives, this plan is designed to accomplish the following:

* Identifies the need for updated Flood Hazard Maps

* Prioritizes the State’s needs for Flood Hazard Mapping

* Demonstrates how the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation manages the mapping effort

* Details a strategy for producing new Flood Hazard Maps

* Outlines performance goals, project tracking, and management tools

4

IV. The State of Montana Program

In 1971 the people of Montana determined it was in their best interests to mange and regulate flood–prone lands and waters, in order to prevent and to alleviate flooding threats to life, to reduce health and safety risks, and to reduce private and public economic losses. Toward this end, the State annotated codes were amended to include a comprehensive program for delineation of designated flood plains and floodways. The purpose is to establish designated floodplains to allow communities to regulate the safe use of floodplains based upon reasonable hydrological certainty. Communities could then require per-mits for the use of land and development in the mapped floodplain, and thereby, reviewing the proposed development and use against the best available flood risk mapping information. These Montana stan-dards exceed NFIP minimum requirements in multiple areas.

Funding for the mapping of the floodplains has been provided largely by FEMA, through the Map Mod-ernization and Risk Map programs, with substantial matches from State and local governments. The State of Montana has dedicated staff resources to the program, in the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, as well as funding. In addition, the DNRC is introducing a bill at the 2012 State legis-lature requesting $200,000 in funding for floodplain mapping for FY 2013.

Another milestone in the State program, demonstrating cooperation among State agencies and a state-wide non-profit trade association, is the 2011 preparation of the first Montana Floodplain Management Assessment. (http://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Interim-Newsletter/2005-Interim-newsletter/interim_06oct.pdf) This report was prepared by the Association of State Floodplain Managers with fund-ing from the Department of Environmental Quality and the cooperation of the Department of Natural Re-sources and Conservation. The report affirms many of the needs carried forward into this business plan and serves as an excellent situation analysis.

Standard Montana Requirements NFIP Requirements

Freeboard

Floodway Standards

Floodway Uses

Mobile Homes

Septic Systems

2 feet

1/2 foot surcharge allowed

Prohibits habitable structures within the floodway

Requires all mobile homes to be elevated to the freeboard protection level

In approved subdivisions, systems must be located 100 outside the floodplain

No freeboard required

1 foot surcharge allowed

Allows structures in the floodway with documentation of zero-rise

Will allow for mobile home placed in an existing mobile home park to be elevated

to 36” above the adjacent grade

Allows systems in the floodplain. Not

covered by insurance.

5

V. Montana Flood Risk Mapping Program Resources

Staff

To fulfill the requirements and responsibilities of the mapping program DNRC has in-place and will dedi-cate these resources to ensure a successful program. Primary resources include:

- Six regional engineers deployed strategically throughout the State in six regions:

In addition to the regional engineers, DNRC staff includes:

- One state floodplain engineer

- One water operations engineer

- One floodplain planner

- One flood insurance community assistance planner

- One flood outreach staff planner

- One floodplain training specialist

- GIS part-time support

7

8

These full time staff resources have combined job experience of well over 300 years. Together they pro-vide the State and FEMA with experience and expertise in floodplain management in the State of Mon-tana, including the National Flood Insurance Program, project and program management, regulation and public policy, information technology, geology, geography, engineering, GIS, hydrology, hydraulics, mod-eling, and extensive knowledge of the State’s flood-prone communities.

Consultants

Contracts with industry-leading multi-disciplinary teams of consultants provides the State and FEMA with superior capacities in hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, digital data conversions, LIDAR technology, and many years of experience with FEMA flood hazard mapping programs.

Partnerships

Partnerships with the Montana Department of Transportation, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Geological Survey and others to coordinate on flood hazard reduction projects, flood hazard data, and engineering applications are another resource the State pro-vides this program.

Outreach

Capacity to perform outreach activities including scoping/discovery workshops, interim/sneak peak and resiliency meetings, preliminary release of DFIRM map meetings, community coordination meetings and meetings with community officials, as well as development and posting of web-based guidance materials, newsletters, technical and policy expertise easily accessible by the local communities, are all professional level services provided to the program by the State.

DNRC also provides outreach activities through public and organizational workshops, whether that is at the Association of Montana Flood Plain Administrators, American Society of Flood Plain Managers, Mon-tana Association of County Officials, League of Montana Cities, and Silver Jackets, Sanitarians and or other professional organizations.

Goals

* New Countywide Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for each Community

* Accurate Study Information

* Maximize State/Local Participation

* Utilize Best Available Data

Montana has one of the premier floodplain management programs in the US. It is one of 16 states that require new construction in the floodplain to be built above the Base Flood Elevation. Montana is one of only eight states that have more stringent requirements than federal standards for mapping floodways. Montana law does not allow habitable structures in the floodway, and on-site waster disposal is not al-lowed within 100 feet of the floodplain.

The Montana DNRC floodplain program has strong State floodplain management standards administered by experienced staff. The primary goal of the DNRC floodplain program is to provide accurate and up to date floodplain mapping information to Montana’s communities. DNRC staff provide technical assistance to the 130 locally administered flood plain management programs through out the State, they evaluate community performance in managing development in the floodplain and they provide outreach and train-ing to help build State and community floodplain management expertise.

VI. Current Mapping Priorities

Program Mapping Needs

State of Montana DNRC – RiskMap Program Topographic Data Collection and New RiskMap

Project Priorities Summary

FIRST PRIORITY:

Gallatin/City of Bozeman: 10020008 Gallatin River Watershed

Gallatin County/City of Bozeman

9

SECOND PRIORITY:

Watersheds include: 17010201 Upper Clark Fork, 10020006 Boulder River, 10020005 Jefferson River, 10020004 Big Hole River, 10020003 Ruby River, & 10020007 Madison River

Powell, Jefferson, and Madison Counties and their communities – current priority areas listed below but scoping needed for some areas that have not previously been scoped (Madison County)

Jefferson:

ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION

Hyalite Creek 11 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

From the Forest Service Boundary to the confluence with the East Gallatin River

Gallatin River 35 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

From confluence with East Gallatin to mouth of Gallatin Canyon (HWY 191 bridge)

Aajker Creek 8.5 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

From end of effective mapping…west 8.5 miles as it moves west from Bozeman.

McDonald Creek

6.5 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure


Baxter Creek 6.5 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

6.5 miles where stream runs along Boze-man/County jurisdictional line

West Gallatin River

19 miles Re-mapping needed (vast stream migration and development)

Section currently mapped.

STREAM APPROX. REACH LENGTH

REASON ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION

Boulder River 35 miles Current and future de-velopment pressure – current mapping ex-tremely outdated and

From the Jefferson Slough (Cardwell) to Boulder.

Jefferson River/Jefferson Slough

10 miles Development pressure and lots of LOMA’s



Hyalite Creek 11 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

From the Forest Service Boundary to the confluence with the East Gallatin River

Gallatin River 35 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

From confluence with East Gallatin to mouth of Gallatin Canyon (HWY 191 bridge)

Aajker Creek 8.5 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure


McDonald Creek

6.5 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure


Baxter Creek 6.5 miles Unmapped area – de-velopment pressure

6.5 miles where stream runs along Boze-man/County jurisdictional line

West Gallatin River

19 miles Re-mapping needed (vast stream migration and development)

Section currently mapped.

10

Powell:

Big Hole River: Madison, Butte/Silver Bow, & Beaverhead Counties (multiple watersheds)

Madison County:

THIRD PRIORITY:

17010101 Upper Kootenai Watershed

Lincoln (has not been scoped – DFIRM done for Libby and tiny extension into County – rest of county still outdated paper maps) scoping needed to match community priorities with CNMS identified needs and develop topo collect areas.


Clark Fork River

55 miles (15 prior-ity)

Wide Zone A currently – vast stream migration and development pres-sure

15 mile priority area: From Fred Bur Creek to the Racetrack. 55 miles entire existing zone A.

Cottonwood Creek

2 miles Channel has been modified significantly

North Fork – Blackfoot river

8 miles Development pressure – limited detail study is needed


Big Hole River

50 miles Local watershed interest group funding, together, with State and Federal grant funding has been obtained and this project

From Jefferson River (twin bridges) to the divide. Project will serve as an approxi-mate map pilot project for other Montana communities.


Jefferson River

Undetermined Development pres-sure, high interest ri-parian area.

From Twin Bridges Downstream espe-cially for old channels around Cardwell and Whitehall.



Jefferson River

Undetermined Development pres-sure, high interest ri-parian area.

From Twin Bridges Downstream espe-cially for old channels around Cardwell and Whitehall.



Big Hole River

50 miles Local watershed interest group funding, together, with State and Federal grant funding has been obtained and this project

From Jefferson River (twin bridges) to the divide. Project will serve as an approxi-mate map pilot project for other Montana communities.



Clark Fork River

55 miles (15 prior-ity)

Wide Zone A currently – vast stream migration and development pres-sure

15 mile priority area: From Fred Bur Creek to the Racetrack. 55 miles entire existing zone A.

Cottonwood Creek

2 miles Channel has been modified significantly

North Fork – Blackfoot river

8 miles Development pressure – limited detail study is needed

11

FOURTH PRIORITY:

MiddleClark Fork Watershed: 17010204

Communities include Mineral County and Missoula County and their municipalities (need to scope Mis-soula priorities for this watershed)

Mineral:



Tobacco River Undetermined Current and future de-velopment pressure

The area in the county adjacent to the municipality

Therriault Creek

Undetermined Current and future de-velopment pressure – channel migration is-

Lake Creek Undetermined Flooding issues have caused damages to homes

Bull Lake Undetermined Needs elevation infor-mation

STREAM APPROX. REACH

LENGTH


St. Regis and Clarks Fork Confluence

Priority area 1.5 miles (community would like to see additional reach)

Existing and new de-velopment pressure – existing mapping is inaccurate and has known issues (uncertified levee ex-ists – may not want to remap this area – need to do additional scop-ing on this levee be-forehand)

Priority area: Entrance of Little Joe Creek to confluence with Clark Fork

Clark Fork River

Three priority reaches (community would like to see extended coverage of majority of reach)

Inaccurate mapping – development pressure

1) Entrance of St. Regis River to Mile Marker 270 (.5 mile)

2) Along River Bend subdivision (.75 mile)

3) Along Country lane subdivision (.5mile)

Slatese area: packer creek, silver creek, and St. Regis River

Undetermined Inaccurate floodplain mapping and antici-pated development

Saltese area and just past boundary into county for each creek.

12

Missoula:

(Area within this watershed needs to be identified via discovery work with the community)

FIFTH PRIORITY

10030101 Upper Missouri River Watershed

Communities include Lewis and Clark County and Jefferson County and their municipalities

Lewis and Clark:

Jefferson:

VII. Training Needs

The State of Montana has new RiskMap staff that would benefit from training on CNMS, HAZUS analysis, and RiskMap program activities, products, programs and metrics. As FEMA further develops the RiskMap program it is essential that the State of Montana DNRC staff receive training on the new RiskMap non-regulatory deliverables, production techniques and standards. Training on the new discovery process, developed to replace previous scoping guidelines and standards would be beneficial, and exposure to the lessons learned from the recent pilot project discovery efforts would be highly beneficial.



Prickley Pear Creek

undetermined Currently unmapped – significant current and future development pressure. Were af-fected by 2011 flood-

The Montana City and Clancy areas and surrounding County extents.



Blackfoot River

8 miles Significant issues with existing study – current and future development pressure

From Humbug Creek to Landers Fork

13

VIII. Grant Request

Montana has been a very successful applicant for FEMA flood program mapping monies in years past, with awards upwards of a million dollars annually. Montana currently has 14 mapping projects under-way in 13 counties and has completed 6 other countywide mapping projects to date, in the 8 years of the program. In each of those years FEMA has helped fund program administration through a separate grant. This business plan is support documentation and justification for continuance of the program fund-ing in FFY 2012. While FEMA project grant funding has been cut, and thus the likely number of new mapping projects in the State of Montana for FFY 2012, the State still has a substantial work load of mapping projects underway, which need to be managed to successful completion. Toward that end, the State is requesting $118,008 dollars in program administration grant funding, which is slightly less than last year’s award. At the same time the State has raised it’s in-kind contribution to support this work, from $38,412 to $80,300 in staff resources, a 109% increase. See attached budget sheets.

14

I. Flood Risk Mapping Need - Montana...

Documents

Transcript of I. Flood Risk Mapping Need - Montana...